All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
To: Tim Harvey <tharvey@gateworks.com>
Cc: Steve deRosier <derosier@gmail.com>, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: ubi/ubifs performance comparison on two NAND devices
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 17:44:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3595506.DBTOofq0ZL@blindfold> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ+vNU12C4va7-cCKzxHgVftZ-omODefsnzmMMjFnQtR-+ZWbQ@mail.gmail.com>

Am Freitag, 1. März 2019, 17:41:06 CET schrieb Tim Harvey:
> Steve,
> 
> I've compared erase/read/write speeds for both flashes and the Cypress
> flash is 2x slower than the Micron on a 'per-byte-size' basis (which
> is what I would expect as the datasheets have pretty much the same
> timings per 'block' but the micron has 2x larger blocks and the chips
> are the same overall size meaning the cypress would have 2x as many
> 'block' operations across the same size).
> 
> So, at a raw erase/read/write level the Cypress is 2x slower than
> Micron, but ubi-scan is 7x slower (4s to 28s), and ubifs-space-fixup
> is 100x slower (0.5s to 50s).
> 
> I guess i've made a mess of the description of the issue. I can dig in
> and find the basic flash timings the kernel is using 'but' when I test
> using flash_erase and dd for erase/read/write over say 60M I find the
> expected 2x slower performance. I just don't understand why I see a
> much slower performance at the ubi and ubifs layers.

Can we please start with decent numbers?
Is UBI really slower than expected? Or only UBIFS file read/write?

I'm still totally confused by your allegations.

Thanks,
//richard



______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

      reply	other threads:[~2019-03-01 16:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-02-27 20:39 ubi/ubifs performance comparison on two NAND devices Tim Harvey
2019-02-27 22:12 ` Richard Weinberger
2019-02-27 22:43   ` Tim Harvey
2019-02-27 22:59     ` Richard Weinberger
2019-02-28 16:40       ` Tim Harvey
2019-02-28 17:21         ` Steve deRosier
2019-03-01 16:41           ` Tim Harvey
2019-03-01 16:44             ` Richard Weinberger [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3595506.DBTOofq0ZL@blindfold \
    --to=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=derosier@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=tharvey@gateworks.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.